Tweet
This is not going to be a quick one, so please bear with me!
Two siblings A and B are left a house to be split 50/50 - equal share, equal say on what happens to it etc.
Probate in February values it at £160k, possible £165k on the open market.
(Even split 80,000 - 82,500)
A gets Estate agents in to view in March/April, who are probably looking at getting it on their books and inflate the price for their commission. Estimates are between £170k and £190k.
(Even split after legal fees and commission of 2k is between 84 and 89k).
A wants B to pay 88k or the house must go on the open market.
B wants the house, but does not think the house is worth that much, but agrees, despite no evidence the house would achieve anything like that on the open market.
The agreement was that B had to sell their house by a certain date.
B cannot sell own home in time to pay A, so applies for a mortgage.
Mortgage company's intructed surveyor comes back at £159k, and home buyers report at £155k.
(Even split £78,500 or £76,500, with fees deducted).
Taking into consideration that house prices have dropped in the year, but the house would have been, at the most £165k (even split after fees of £81,500) B offered A £85k, which is £3,500 more than a 50/50 split, and equal to the house being worth £170k, or £15k more than the market value.
A claims it is the delays in selling B's house that have caused the drop. A believes in effect the joint property was worth £160k probate in March, or £165k on the open market (with fees etc to be deducted), that by March/April it had gone up in value to about £190k (an increase of £25K in under 8 weeks) and dropped again by November by £35k, and it's all B's fault.
B had offered to pay the difference in the TRUE February top valuation of £165k and the £155k it is now worth - £85k.
Questions are -
Can A force B to pay more than the 50/50 split.
Can A force the house to be put on the market when B does not want it to be.
If they have a 50/50 share/right does one person's wishes 'top trump' the other's.
As B has offered more than the open market price can A force B to Court to get the house on the market.
As A appears to have inflated the open market price to get a financial advantage over B, are there any comebacks. B had agreed the £88 because there was no reason at the time not to trust A, although A never offered any proof the figures were correct, genuine, or were ever more that dreamt up by avarice on the part of the Estate agents.
Would a suggested asking price by a vendor have an equal legal standing in a court as a probate value, mortgage appraisal and a home buyers report, all of which have been signed off by the relevant qualified surveyor.
A knows B wants the house, and is willing to pay a reasonable sum over the market value. A is holding out for a considerable figure higher than that.
Does the fact that A is demanding more than a 50/50 split and threatening B with putting the house on the market if B does not pay what is effect a sizeable chunk of money amount to extortion or blackmail.
I did read somewhere that legally blackmail is when someone uses threats against another for financial or other gain to make them act in a way that is not in their best interest.
E.G. A telling B that if B does not give A more money that they are entitled to in the will A will deprive B of something B wants, even though A and B are equal partners.
Any thoughts, hints, suggestions etc I can throw at A to get reason into the debate.
I think there is a lot more than just the money riding on this, and it is being used as an excuse.
A hates the thought of B getting anything that A hasn't - even if A has first refusal and does not want it, B must not be allowed to get it instead.
Even if A lost every penny in the battle to prevent B getting the house, it would still keep going trying to get one over.
I think it has gone beyond the money - demanding more than a reasonable amount over the half split was a way of forcing B's hand. A wanted to see how far B would go, then it could used as an excuse to pull out of a deal that A never wanted to be fair when B said 'Enough'.
Two siblings A and B are left a house to be split 50/50 - equal share, equal say on what happens to it etc.
Probate in February values it at £160k, possible £165k on the open market.
(Even split 80,000 - 82,500)
A gets Estate agents in to view in March/April, who are probably looking at getting it on their books and inflate the price for their commission. Estimates are between £170k and £190k.
(Even split after legal fees and commission of 2k is between 84 and 89k).
A wants B to pay 88k or the house must go on the open market.
B wants the house, but does not think the house is worth that much, but agrees, despite no evidence the house would achieve anything like that on the open market.
The agreement was that B had to sell their house by a certain date.
B cannot sell own home in time to pay A, so applies for a mortgage.
Mortgage company's intructed surveyor comes back at £159k, and home buyers report at £155k.
(Even split £78,500 or £76,500, with fees deducted).
Taking into consideration that house prices have dropped in the year, but the house would have been, at the most £165k (even split after fees of £81,500) B offered A £85k, which is £3,500 more than a 50/50 split, and equal to the house being worth £170k, or £15k more than the market value.
A claims it is the delays in selling B's house that have caused the drop. A believes in effect the joint property was worth £160k probate in March, or £165k on the open market (with fees etc to be deducted), that by March/April it had gone up in value to about £190k (an increase of £25K in under 8 weeks) and dropped again by November by £35k, and it's all B's fault.
B had offered to pay the difference in the TRUE February top valuation of £165k and the £155k it is now worth - £85k.
Questions are -
Can A force B to pay more than the 50/50 split.
Can A force the house to be put on the market when B does not want it to be.
If they have a 50/50 share/right does one person's wishes 'top trump' the other's.
As B has offered more than the open market price can A force B to Court to get the house on the market.
As A appears to have inflated the open market price to get a financial advantage over B, are there any comebacks. B had agreed the £88 because there was no reason at the time not to trust A, although A never offered any proof the figures were correct, genuine, or were ever more that dreamt up by avarice on the part of the Estate agents.
Would a suggested asking price by a vendor have an equal legal standing in a court as a probate value, mortgage appraisal and a home buyers report, all of which have been signed off by the relevant qualified surveyor.
A knows B wants the house, and is willing to pay a reasonable sum over the market value. A is holding out for a considerable figure higher than that.
Does the fact that A is demanding more than a 50/50 split and threatening B with putting the house on the market if B does not pay what is effect a sizeable chunk of money amount to extortion or blackmail.
I did read somewhere that legally blackmail is when someone uses threats against another for financial or other gain to make them act in a way that is not in their best interest.
E.G. A telling B that if B does not give A more money that they are entitled to in the will A will deprive B of something B wants, even though A and B are equal partners.
Any thoughts, hints, suggestions etc I can throw at A to get reason into the debate.
I think there is a lot more than just the money riding on this, and it is being used as an excuse.
A hates the thought of B getting anything that A hasn't - even if A has first refusal and does not want it, B must not be allowed to get it instead.
Even if A lost every penny in the battle to prevent B getting the house, it would still keep going trying to get one over.
I think it has gone beyond the money - demanding more than a reasonable amount over the half split was a way of forcing B's hand. A wanted to see how far B would go, then it could used as an excuse to pull out of a deal that A never wanted to be fair when B said 'Enough'.
Comment